Bombay High Court
THE ZILLA PARISHAD NANDED THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERversusLALITA BALAJI PANCHAL AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The Industrial Court's order directing the substitution of respondent No.2 in the waiting list for a compassionate appointment is upheld.
Summary
The Zilla Parishad Nanded filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court, Jalna, which directed the appointment of respondent No.2 on compassionate grounds by substituting her name in the waiting list, despite a Government Resolution dated 20‑May‑2015 that purportedly forbids such substitution. The respondents had filed a complaint under sections 26 and 28 of Schedule 4 of the MRTU and PULP Act, seeking compassionate appointments for the widow of a deceased employee and subsequently for her son. The petitioner argued that the policy allows only the first family member who applied to retain the waiting‑list position and that the Court’s order contravened this rule. The respondents relied on a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kalpana wd/o Vilas Taram vs State of Maharashtra (2024) which permits substitution of another family member under certain circumstances. The High Court, after considering the Full Bench precedent, held that the Industrial Court’s decision was consistent with law and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Government Resolution of 20‑May‑2015 bars substitution of a family member's name in the waiting list for a compassionate appointment under the MRTU and PULP Act.
- Whether the Industrial Court erred in directing the appointment of respondent No.2 on compassionate grounds by substituting her name in the waiting list.
- Interpretation of sections 26 and 28 of Schedule 4 of the MRTU and PULP Act in the context of compassionate appointments.
Legislation cited
- MRTU and PULP Act — s. 26, 28
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- waiting list
- government resolution
- industrial court
- substitution
- public service employment
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:15020
1 wp 4053.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
943 WRIT PETITION NO. 4053 OF 2025
The Zilla Parishad Nanded Through Its Chief Executive Officer
VERSUS
Lalita Balaji Panchal And Another
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Yogita S.Thorat
Advocate for Respondents 1,2 : Mr. Uday V Khode
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : April 08, 2026
ORDER :-
1. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated
17.12.2024 passed below Exhibit-5 in complaint ULP No.130
of 2020 by Industrial Court, Jalna.
2. The respondents filed complaint ULP No.130 of 2020
under section 26 and 28 read with Item no.5,9 and 10 of
Schedule No.4 of the MRTU and PULP Act against petitioner
and also challenged appointment order issued in favour of
respondent no.1. It was contention of petitioner that husband
of respondent no.1. i.e. Balaji Panchal was employed on
establishment of petitioner. He expired on 22.2.2012. On
12.8.2012 application was made by respondent no.1 for
appointment on compassionate ground. Lateron, she filed an
2 wp 4053.25.odt
application to appoint his son respondent no.2 on
compassionate ground. However, vide impugned letter dated
16.12.2020 respondent no.1 was appointed. It was contention
of respondent that petitioner never considered application for
giving appointment to the respondent no.2.
3. Petitioner opposed the complaint contending that as per
Government Resolution dated 20.5.2015 appointment can be
given to one of the family member. Name of respondent no.1
was inserted in waiting list and there is no provision to replace
the name included in waiting list by any other family member.
The Industrial Court, after considering rival submissions
allowed the complaint vide judgment and order dated
17.12.2024 and directed the petitioner to give employment to
respondent no.2 on compassionate ground by substituting her
name in waiting list.
4. Smt. Yogita Thorat, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that petitioner is bound by the policy laid
down under the Government Resolution. In terms of said
policy, there is no provision to replace the name of first
applicant/family member, who raised claim for appointment on
compassionate ground. However, directions by Industrial
3 wp 4053.25.odt
Court are contrary to the policy laid down by State
Government. As such, impugned order is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for respondents
invited attention of this Court to the Full Bench judgment of
this Court in case of Kalpana wd/o. Vilas Taram Vs State of
Maharashtra reported in 2024 (4) Mh.L.J. 312 to contend that
a policy relating to compassionate appointment does not
prohibit substitution of name of another family member, who
has applied on account of either crossing the age of member of
45 years or for some other reason.
6. In light fo the aforesaid exposition of law by Full Bench
of this Court, contention raised on behalf of petitioner-Zilla
Parishad does not hold water. The Industrial Court has rightly
considered rival contentions and legal position as discernible
from Full Bench Judgment of this Court, which holds the field
as on today.
7. In that view of matter, there is no merit in writ petition.
Hence, writ petition stands rejected.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
AAA/-f ……..
Checking your session…